About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 10
CNNW 9
CSPAN 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 35
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)
it certainly was clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al-qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy, and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely, it was wrong. megyn: joining us now, kelly ayotte, a republican senator from new hampshire who was part of those meetings today and whose sound bite you just heard. senator, welcome back to the program. >> thank you, megyn. megyn: all right, explain that for us, if you would. why are you more troubled today than you were before you met with ambassador rice? >> well, first of all, i appreciated that we had the meeting today, but i will say that up front the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice said that the story about the video and the protests was wrong. in fact, the acting director of the cia said by the 22nd of september they had absolutely confirmed that that was wrong, and so i think the first issue is having gone on every major news network and represented that story that she now admits is wron
from the director of central intelligence agency, that references of al qaeda were taken out for security reasons not for political reasons. do you accept the explanation by ambassador rice? >> i don't believe that the best intelligence assessment on 16, september was that there was a spontaneous event in benghazi based on a video that led to a mob that became a riot. the cia station chief on the day of the attack reported in realtime we're under attack by al qaeda affiliates. the president in libya said on the day of atack -- excuse me on 16, september, al qaeda was involved. we've got drones. released the video. we know what a mob looks like in the mideast. i am increasingly convinced the fbi interviewed the survivors in ramstein, germany, the day after and convinced that the best and current intelligence assessment on 16, september went against the video. the video was a political smoke screen. the actual facts were this was a coordinated preplanned terrorist attack. when the president said on "letterman" we think the video caused this. when he said at the u.n. we won't le
to the salafists and al qaeda, yeah. they are a muslim brotherhood government which is why morsi had the leverage to negotiate the cease-fire. >> mika, a lot of interesting things, talking about foreign policy going on here at home, talking about who the next secretary of state may be, john mccain said, along with lindsey graham and several others, who said they were going to fight susan rice tooth and nail, that sort of changed over the weekend, didn't it? >> that appears to be changing just a tad bit. heilmann, you wrote about it. senator mccain is softening his attacks on u.n. ambassador susan rice after vowing to block her potential nomination as secretary of state. republicans claim ambassador rice deliberately misled the country in the aftermath of the september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. but rice says that she's not to blame, arguing she relied on the talking points from the intelligence community. although mccain had threatened a senate filibuster earlier this month, he's now open to meeting directly with miss rice. >> is there anything that ambassador rice can do to c
.i.a. immediately it was terrorism and it said al-qaeda in the official c.i.a. talking points. but after it left our hands, we don't know exactly who changed the talking points. brian, that's what everybody in washington has been trying to figure out, who, who, who did it? >> brian: the national intelligence director, james clapper, the same who went up to general petraeus and said, i really suggest you resign, says it was my office. he said that because the al-qaeda mentions by the c.i.a. in his mind, were tenuous and too tenuous to publicize, so cbs learned and we have confirmed, that we decided to tell congress that -- or susan rice a different story. >> alisyn: this is curious because the committee that's investigating this and the house said that they tonight remember that. in fact, that is quite opposite from what was testified to previously about who knew what when. so congressman mike rogers, who is the chairman of the committee said he finds this story officially, basically, out of the office and he wants to reinterview james clapper to ask about this, quote, new explanation coming out of t
there was clearly counter information that affirmed that this was a terrorist attack orchestrated by an al qaeda affiliated organization. >> by now you know the story. rice intimated a cheesy anti-islam film caused the murderous rampage at the consulate in benghazi, libya. not true. her assertion on several sunday talk shows was okayed by the intelligence community and caused one great big partisan brawl. soon, democrats piled on, accusing republicans of racism. >> susan rice's comments didn't send us to iraq and afghanistan. somebody else's did. but you're not angry with them. i would just say in closing that it is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. i have a real issue with that. >> yet when asked about mccain, rice was conciliatory. >> i have great respect for senator mccain and his service to our country. i always have. and i always will. i do think that some of the statements he made about me have been unfounded. but i look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with him. >> so, after mccain saying he would
denied al qaeda's lead role in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that cost the lives of ambassador chris stevens and three others and she did so knowing it was true. well, the man who defeated mccain in the 2008 presidential campaign takes this as a personal shot at him. how will he respond? will he name ambassador rice his new secretary of state to replace hillary clinton? will he meet mccain's challenge head on and send rice up to the capitol to go face-to-face with the enemy? tonight we study the battlefield and the firepower of the two sides in this year-ending fire fight. mccain sure wants this fight, but do his fellow republicans? do they want an older white guy taking on the competence of a young woman of color, a rhodes scholar of solid reputation? most important, what end does the president want for this match of fact and wits? i'm joined by michael o'hanlon of the brookings institution and jonathan landay. the intelligence reporter for mcclatchy newspapers. michael, thank you for this. i want to get to the facts. am i right, is the main charge here coming fr
. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> certainly she misled the american public. i think that she would say that. she'd have to say that. >> now, soledad, ambassador rice is not without her supporters. democrats on the hill say rice's republican critics are still the ones politicizing the benghazi atta
. also this morning, defense secretary leon panetta spelling out the future against al qaeda, while speaking about the september 11th attacks at a washington-based think tank. he praised what's being done but he says there's still a lot of work left to do. >> we know we're going to be smaller. we're going to be leaner. it's a reality of coming out of these wars. but we have to be agile. we have to be deployable. we have to be flexible. and we have to be on the cutting edge of technology. >> panetta also talked about investing in cyberspace, unmanned systems for the future. also, former boxing champ hector macho camacho is recovering this morning, after being shot in his face in his native puerto rico. police say camacho and another man were just sitting in a car when someone opened fire. the second man was killed. the bullet caused damage to two vertebrae in camacho's neck. he is in serious condition but expected to survive. >>> a near-riot caught on camera at a city council meeting in newark, new jersey last night. take a look. listen to this. people there storming the stage after
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
under oath in front of congress that he had no idea how the words al-qaeda and other phrases were removed from the talking points that cia prepared and later were reinserted. he said he didn't know how that happened, and he put out a statement earlier this week saying it happened in his shop. those are two totally contradictory things he's saying. gregg: and by the way, it's a crime to lie to congress. but let me move on. the president's news conference last week, he said the people elected him to work with the other side and not to get into partisan fights. but, steve, if he nominates rice to be the next secretary of state, wouldn't that trigger a major partisan fight, and would he really do that when, after all, he's trying to reach a bipartisan deal to avoid the fiscal cliff? >> right. look, i would be surprised if the president put her forward given everything that we've seen. there were one or two scenarios, right? either she was, this was a tryout for her and she failed, or it was the case that they sent her out on purpose as the president suggested when he said they sent ou
explained she was using unclassified talking points which were stripped of references to al qaeda, still classified by the intelligence community. so rice used the word extremist. >> extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. >> reporter: a source inside the meeting tells cnn rice admitted to gop senators she was aware of classified information suggesting al qaeda was behind the attack, and yet gop senators point out she still said this publicly. >> we have decimated al qaeda. >> reporter: cnn also was told rice tried to clarify to gop senators what she meant was al qaeda's poor leadership has been decimated but gop senators say it is proof rice was putting pre-election spin before national security. >> it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama three weeks before an election. >> reporter: ambassador rice, what do you say to republicans who say your comments were politically motivated? rice didn't answer our question but admitted her talking points were, quo, incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstr
't involved in removing the information on al qaeda. he said the intelligence community made the changes. in responding to this report, mccain admitted that he was wrong, but still took a shot at the white house. he said intelligence officials, quote, told us they did not know who made the changes. now we have to read the answers to our questions in the media. this latest episode is another reason why many of us are so suspicious of actions of this administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. meanwhile, his sidekick, lindsey graham, is going into full attack mode. senator graham wrote a letter to president obama on tuesday, saying that he's concerned. many questions remain unanswered on the benghazi attacks. he says the president has a duty to the american people to answer the basic questions surrounding the benghazi attack. so far, all of the right-wing conspiracy theories about the benghazi attack have been completely wrong. it's about time they dropped all of this nonsense and just went back to doing their jobs. let's bring in democratic consultant, tara doudel, and also with
that this was an yak. the intelligence community opted to leave specific reference to al qaeda and terrorism out of her presentation because they didn't want al qaeda to know that we knew what we knew. this is classic investigative philosophy. don't let the suspects know you suspect them. it's clear to me there was no mendacity by susan rice, no incompetence, there was no cover-up by the white house. to continue to argue there was any of that is now tin foil hat stuff. there is also now no will to filibuster to block rice. this is perhaps why john mccain has softened his tone. >> but you're saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position just as she said, but she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states. >> that's an end, i hope, to the vicious and baseless character attack that has made rice the center of a witch hunt by the right even though she has done nothing to disqualify herself. mccain tried to make her unnominatable but made it so obama will look weak
on those sunday talk shows. why she did not mention al qaeda, not just that -- because we understand now that she didn't mention it because she was told that that was classified and she was given unclassified talking points and that's what she read from. the bigger question they have, we're told, is why she went further and said that the obama administration has decimated al qaeda and whether or not she said that knowing the classified information, which suggested that al qaeda might have been behind or at least an affiliate of al qaeda might have been behind this attack in benghazi. >> it will be an interesting morning on the hill. >> this is ridiculous. first of all, she wasn't secretary of state. you have critics who don't want to mention secretary of state clinton, didn't want to mention petraeus when it came to the cia. and they want to zero in on somebody who frankly was sent out on television who was not even over the ambassador. >> are we seeing here, basically, the end game on this? will this resolve these issues? do we think that basically we're going to expect to see her nomin
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
amended it to say or it could have been about the movie. >> they certainly didn't want to say al-qaeda, hamas or hezbollah. they didn't want to blame someone early. here is the white house defending their position, the spokesperson president press briefing. >> there are no unanswered questions about ambassador rice's appearance on sundays shows and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community. those questions have been answered. >> cenk: yeah, look, again i'm not putting it on susan rice. someone changed the talking points. john mccain is on with her on that same face the nation says no way it's a terrorist attack, it was coordinated. >> they had the talking points and went against them. you're with the three amigos, you're the fourth amigo. >> cenk: let's go on to something different. touree. >> old white establishment folks wrongly and repeatedly attacking a much younger black woman moments after an election in which blacks and women strongly went blue. >> cenk: do you think this has anything to do with rice' gender or race?
it in themselves to soften. here is the thing the way i understand it. they pulled al-qaeda out of the talking points and pulled the protest out of the talking points and she still went with it. she still went with it and told the american people everything she was told to say. >> bob: learn how the process works. c.i.a. is one of a number of intelligence agencies that put talk points. they didn't have the agre agreement. she got factual in their view, intelligence community view of what happened. she gave it to the sunday talk show. she made a mistake and said she made a mistak miswhat more u ask for? do you think he is went up and there purposefully lied? >> brian: shouldn't you do your research? >> andrea: yes. she knew there were conflicting accounts. why push anyone from the administration out to say anything at all. she should have done her research. maybe she is not a liar. maybe she is incatch tent. one thing that the senator trying to block you. it was great what mccain did. getting the heat. and republicans were being sexist. and let me give her a fair shake. john bolton was up for a
. -- we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved. they knew by the 22nd that the information given to them was wrong, yet they have not cleared that up with the american people to date in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states. host: the new hampshire senator went on to say she will block any clinton's successor, because she wants more information about the benghazi attacks. what is next on that front? since an individual senator can put a hold on a nomination. that could prevent this from going forward. we have seen this in previous cases. if we saw this in the bush and administration would john bolton. we have seen it in a couple of cases in the obama administration where nominee for a high government post was held up for a long time. it all depends in the end on whether kelly ayotte gets any allies from her fellow republicans on this, because the way you could overcome her individual opposition is to get about five republicans that the democrats would need to break any filibuster that she might muster. i suspect, based on what i've seen of the
references to al qaeda and terrorism before ambassador rice went on all five sunday shows. he also says he knew at the time extremists were involved. the bottom line was this just wasn't ready for public consumption. there was a lot of covert stuff going on on the ground. senators now want him to explain the decision. senator mccain now says he he is willing to give ambassador rice a change -- chance to explain herself. a note of importance she worked hard against him in his run for the white house in 2008. many democrats believe part of his opposition to her nomination dates to that. the egyptian president who helped broker the cease-fire between israel and hamas today defended his controversial power grab. the egyptian president mohammed morsi stood by his decision to essentially give himself complete control over egypt. he says it's only temporary. you may recall last week he issued several decrees. including an order that all decisions he makes are final. and one that states no legislature and no court can overturny law that he makes. if that sounds like a dictatorship to you, it does
not to say because we didn't want al qaeda to know we knew it at that point. the real question is why is mccain making this attack and wasting whatever political capital and reputation he has left? >> reporter: well, some people are wondering does mccain want to simply stay in the spotlight? mccain is known for foreign policy. he's known for going on sunday shows. the benghazi issue gets him back in the spotlight. everyone is talking about john mccain again. so some people wonder if there's a little bit of political opportunism there. >> i want to go back to something krystal said a minute ago. closing ranks behind susan rice because much political battle lines in this. you made the point earlier if you just looked at this without regard to benghazi and said john mccain realistically speaking, who potentially could appoint secretary of state that would agree ideological with you. realistically susan rice is as good as he can do. the consensus in the democratic party is probably to the right of it. i wonder is there any push-back from the left or from democrats in washington toward the admin
took out al-qaeda talking points after originally saying he had no idea who did it. so who should we really believe? maybe santa can help us. nope. instead we got michael goodwin. you can find his columns in the "new york post" and fox news. who is telling the truth and who is lying? >> look, you ask who we should believe? i think no one. that's the whole point of putting people under oath. then supposedly get the truth or we get perjury. i believe susan rice had to know better before she made those comments. i just recently reread president obama's speech to the u.n. where there is no question he is saying the video did it. all of that was false. they all had reason to know it was false. clapper is just a clown. i mean, he does this all the time. and the idea that james clapper can take responsibility for making the changes, why isn't president obama furious at him? why doesn't president obama fire him today if the president really believed that clapper made a huge mistake? >> gretchen: that's a loaded question because as director of national intelligence to say one thing and then s
in the middle-east is inviting this change to go in the wrong direction. al qaeda is on the rise, the islamists are on the rise. morsesi looked at iraq and saw al-maliki on the rise. our policy should be all in, keeping with our national interest and keeping with our values and help shape morsi. he is not going away. >> how do you think the president will walk the line of not getting involved in affairs we shouldn't be involved and and stopping the dominoes that are falling, one by one and balancing our national security, which is definitely impacted? >> it definitely is. there are four transition governments. one is in libya, we have a moderate government there that we influence, our failed policy there led to benghazi. syria -- that's unfolding, also tunisia and yemen. those countries are yet to be resolved. we can definitely influence that. if we don't influence that, if we sit on our hands, it is likely that radical islamists will have undue influence. >> shannon: how long do you think the cease-fire holds between hamas and israel? >> no one knows for sure. but i think it will hold for a wh
knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the ambassador and clearly, the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia clearly that that information was wrong, and they knew by the 22nd it was wrong. yet, they've not cleared that up with the american people to date and have come forward and said it was wrong, including the president of the united states also parroting and talking about this is reaction to a video, the attacks in benghazi. and what troubles me also is that the -- obviously the changes made to the unclassified talking points were misleading but just to be clear, when you have a position when you are ambassador to the united states, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities for that job and that's troubling to me as well, why she wouldn't have said -- it's not just the talking points but it is part of her responsibility as the ambassador of a united nation to reveal
of the rewriting of those talking points was done by the fbi to take out al qaeda references, not by the zewe we had been told by the director of national intelligence came from the intelligence committee. it's worse than when she went up. she'll see bob corker, known to be bipartisan from tennessee and i don't think it'll be quite as vitriolic as yesterday. she felt she wanted to clear her name and she had been maligned and just been on morning television. that the real issue as jay carney was trying to say what happened before, what happened during but not what happened on sunday morning television programs and there is an investigation that hillary clinton has commissioned. it is a legally mandated investigation being led by none other than the former chairman, joint chief, mike ullin and co-chaired from mike pickering and deputy secretary of state. it's going to be coming out in mid-december and reported to congress and i understand it's going to be very tough on the state department for not ramping up security which many people believe could be the real issue here, not what was said on sund
. the dni explaining that the talking points as they're called were changed. if that reference to al qaeda was taken out. one to be an intelligence issue. i think what's happening is there is no final answer yet on everything that is concerned with benghazi until those investigations are completed, and those investigations, of course, are the fbi investigation and then also the state department's own investigation. so at this point it's not -- i don't think it's really getting a lot of traction. there's not a lot of change. you have ambassador rice coming out and saying that she raid the points that were presented to her by the intelligence community, but then there was one senator who said, well, she should have gone further. she should have investigated or questioned those. those are all legitimate questions. i don't think that they are going to be totally resolved. i think the questions are going to continue until there might be some type of resolution, you know, when the whole very sad and tragic affair is understood. >> all right. we're going have to leave it at that. i want to have m
. there is no question. >> there is a question. >> how the al qaeda references were eliminated. was it james clapper? was it the justice department? was it somebody else. that we don't know the answer to and maybe the confirmation hearings for susan rice will reveal that. however, i think what's striking about this "washington post" piece, and again, it is online by stephanie mccrummon anybody can read it, how obvious it is they are setting her to run for president in 2016. as soon as she leaves the state dipt which will be probably next, a little while, articles like this will be seen, part of a fund-raising pitch. hillary is your obvious choice, democrats to run for president. look at all the puffy praise. every bad thing that happened in the obama administration foreign policy not saying all bad but this article now wipes all those away. she is beloved. everybody loves her. she spent 30 years in public service which i don't quite understand how they got the math on that. nonetheless they're saying it that way. and i think it's reminder what we have to look forward to in the next four years. >> th
references to al qaeda being involved. so another question for her would clearly be, who changed that, who decided not to include that, right? >> let's come to the second point. that she says she simply read these talking points and if that's true, really poses a much more fundamental question. why did she read the talking points? and it goes to a basic disagreement about how senior officials function in government. there are plenty of people, and i can same secretaries of state, who simply regurgitate what their bureaucracies produced for them, who relied on talking points. talking points were put in front of them and they read them. that is one way to approach government. that is not the way i approached government and got me in considerable trouble from time to time. if that is the way she approached it i think there is question whether from a point of view of judgment that is something that you want to see perpetuated. martha: talk about the politics of all of this for a moment because there's a reason that susan rice requested these meetings with these three senators. we know she is b
al-qaeda, jon. jon: still so many questions left to answer. catherine herridge, thank you. >> reporter: you're welcome. jon: well, both senators mccabe and ayotte will appear on fox news channel earlier today. senator ayotte will speak with megyn kelly on "america live" which comes to you right after "happening now." and then on your world, 4 p.m. eastern time, neil cavuto will talk with senator mccain, his first formal interview since today's meeting with ambassador rice, you'll want to hear what both senators have to say. jenna: new concerns right now, the president and republicans may not be able to reach a deal on that looming fiscal cliff. the president meeting with small business owners at the white house despite signs that talks are stalling on capitol hill. james rosen is live at the white house and, james, just last week folks were saying there's some optimism coming out of these talks. why now is there a feeling that maybe things respect going as well? >> reporter: let's face it, jenna, a trained observer could be forgiving for serving the state of these fiscal c
, what happened is he told the senators that it was actually the fbi who took al qaeda references out of the unclassified talking points. only to call back several hours later saying, oops, i was wrong, it wasn't the fbi, it was the cia. here is what lindsey graham said about that. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours. and is totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi. and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> so what these meetings least this particular issue has done is added fuel to the fire and it is not like, you needed to add any more fuel to the fire, especially for senators like lindsey graham who is already really publicly outraged about a lot of issues dealing with the benghazi attack. >> this is just one more. one more. dana bash, thank you. >>> after trashing the hit tv show "two and a half men," the actor angus jones, now back tracking from his controve
that seemed to play down the role of al qaeda terrorists on the attack in benghazi, libya. that attack killed four americans, including u.s. ambassador chris stevens. rice maintains that she made it very clear, the intelligence information she had at the time was preliminary. senators are threatening to block her nomination if president obama chooses her to be his next secretary of state. >>> president obama and vice president joe biden will meet with mexico's president-elect today. pena kneeate toe has a new message. in an editorial in "the washington post" he said the u.s./mexico relations need to go beyond drugs and security concerns. topping his list, deepening economic ties with the united states. >>> the remains of former palestinian leader yasser arafat were exhumed this morning from a mausoleum in the west bank. many palestinians believe that arafat was poisoned by israel when he died in 2004. now, an international team of scientists will analyze tissue samples to see if they contain any traces of a radioactive substance. the actual cause of arafat's death was never determined. >>> th
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)